« Keeping America Safe! | Main | Racism of Another Sort »

Comments

Greg

Well if a crazy liberal like Barney Frank has something to say about this, this might be a ting of the past. Frank has called for legislation that would allow shareholders the ability to vote on CEO pay and compensation packages for the companies that they own. Let me just make it clear, Frank has never said that there should be a cap on pay for CEO, all he says is that this matter should be up to the shareholders. If the shareholders are OK with the rate of pay or the compensation packages, so be it. One can watch him explain this point clearly below:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/06/ \cavuto-frank/trackback/

LLR

I don’t know many of the details about this guy and his pay but I do know that Ford is loosing money left and right. Toyota is moving in on GM very quickly. As a matter of fact Toyota is building anew plant less than an hour from me here in Mississippi.

Liberals shriek like banshees about the out-of-whack compensation being doled out to the heads of many U.S. corporations.
Add me to their chorus. This just does not make sense.

Yeah speak out about it. You can write about it or speak about it all day. I don’t own any Ford stock so I don’t have a dog in this fight.

I do have a problem with politicians always trying stick their noses in places they have no business. What does the gov’t plan on doing? Will they bail Ford out of their debt? Will they place a cap on CEO pay? Will they add a windfall profit tax?
In my opinion, the government and unions play a big part in the big three’s downfall. There is no reason for each car price stick to have $1000+ built in it for insurance for union workers.

Take a look at the other car manufactures like Nissan and Toyota that don’t have to fight with unions. They are growing while the others are cutting their workforce. Some say their cars are even built better.

Barney Frank has a strong socialist streak so I am weary of any legislation that he proposes.

Greg

If you are speaking about the extra costs that go into cars for health care cost, then I believe the issue is not exactly with the unions. Over the past decade the unions have made many concessions to the auto companies to help them stay afloat. It is my contention that the culprit in these cases is not the unions, but the cause has more to do with the spiraling cost of health care. If the cost of health care were not as high as they were, there wouldn't be the added cost to the sticker prices of cars. Nissan and Toyota do not have these cost, not because of the unions, but because they have universal health care. That puts them at an advantage with cost to their US competitors.

Data from the Census Bureau shows the number of people who lacked health insurance coverage has risen to over 45 million people. This is the largest number of uninsured people ever reported since the Census Bureau began issuing data on the number of uninsured in 1987. In percentage terms, 15.6 percent of Americans — almost one in every six people are uninsured. Although our economy has been slowly recovering since 2001, health insurance coverage has deteriorated, and as a result, more Americans have been unable to get needed medical care because they are uninsured.

I have a question for you though. You say you have a problem with politicians sticking their noses that they have no business in, do you think that shareholders have a right to be able to agree or disagree with the pay and compensation of the companies that they own? That is the major question of the day.

Last point, I think you have your congressman mixed up. Barney Frank is not the socialist, I am guessing you have him confused with the self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

LLR

If you are speaking about the extra costs that go into cars for health care cost, then I believe the issue is not exactly with the unions. Over the past decade the unions have made many concessions to the auto companies to help them stay afloat.

That was pretty nice of the unions to try and make concessions to the companies that they have helped ruin. Unions won’t necessarily take a company under in a few years but long term they are harmful to companies. Toyota has slowly taken away market share away from GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Look where we are now.

Now I have no problem with unions if the company decides that is how they want to handle their workforce. Maybe they like the idea of just talking to one person that speaks for the thousands of their employees. But I don’t like that there are laws that allow employees of a company to unionize against the wishes of the company and its owners. There are more laws to protect employees against businesses than laws to protect the business against its employees.


Nissan and Toyota do not have these cost, not because of the unions, but because they have universal health care.

How is this so? I live in MS and we have a Nissan plant in Central MS and a new one coming up about an hour from my house. We don’t have any universal healthcare here in MS. Thank God that we don’t.

You say you have a problem with politicians sticking their noses that they have no business in, do you think that shareholders have a right to be able to agree or disagree with the pay and compensation of the companies that they own? That is the major question of the day.

I think that both you and I have a right to disagree or disagree with the pay of execs. Talk all you want. Write all you want. You have that right. I just don’t think that the government should be getting involved with the private decisions of a company because they don’t like that they make more money than they do. CEO pay should be decided by the board members or however THEY decide. It should even be a concern of the government.

I can remember when Exxon/Mobile announced some more record profits figures. Hillary was saying that she wanted to take that’s company’s profits and use them for something. I was like WTF. Here she is a politician and she wants to take the profits of a company that is not government owned. How socialist is that? Now she just announced that she raised over 20 million in one quarter. Should someone take her “profits” and use them as they see fit?

Last point, I think you have your congressman mixed up. Barney Frank is not the socialist, I am guessing you have him confused with the self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

I know the difference between the two. Sanders just got elected to the Senate. I guess they are socialists up there in Vermont. Frank just has a socialist streak. He may not be as socialist as Sanders.

The comments to this entry are closed.